What lesson can we as a forum take from these events? Where ought we stand? I don't about Ms. Mazari but about editorial responsibility - Some Pakistanis think that ideas such a editorial responsibility are outdated, after all, they argue, that right and wrong as just equals, not opposites, good and bad similarly are equal, not opposites - and that freedom of expression means that all expression is equal and acceptable -
Are all ideas "equal"?? If yes, how so? for instance are all ideas morally equal?
Some Pakistanis argue that even if they grant that all equals are not equal, who is to decide what is right and what is wrong and what is good and what is bad?
where should we stand?
To apply the concept of "editorial policy" to a forum is far-fetched and against the very basic principles of running a forum. If this were a newpaper organisation, media outlet, or even an online blog, we could've voted for an editorial policy.
I feel you are confused as to the role of this forum or any other. Let's get down to the nitty-gritty: on a forum all members can publish content and all other members can comment. On a blog/publication, only a certain select number of users/administrators have the rights/privilege to do so, all members/users can post comments.
When one speaks of an editorial policy, then one has to be sure of what the "website" aims for. To think that every single user will comply with the "ed. policy" when they are posting comments in incorrect. Now to say that def.pk should toe a certain line is also incorrect because this is not a "propoganda tool". Largely def.pk's admin is "progressive" (mind you, I am not using the misused and abused "liberal" term) but it does not actively encourage or propogate a certain stance that negates "progressive" principles.
As far as the concept of equal versus opposite is concerned, you yourself mention the "moral" bend. What are one user's morals, won't be another user's morals, and hence the two would never look in the eye. For a third person, whose morals are entirely different from the two above, well, he'll view the two as holding wrongful positions. That's where the concept of "equal" versus "opposites" creeps in. I have afeeling you want a blanket defintion for this where none such exists and shouldn't in the first place. it makes "each to his own redundant".
I'd like to quote Kohlberg's work on moral maturity here, a bit abridged but a refreshing read in its entirety too.
"On the basis of his research, Kohlberg identified six stages of moral reasoning grouped into three major levels. At the first, preconventional level, a person's moral judgments are characterized by a concrete, individual perspective. Within this level, a
Stage 1 heteronomous orientation focuses on avoiding breaking rules that are backed by punishment, obedience for its own sake, and avoiding the physical consequences of an action.
At Stage 2 a moral orientation emerges that focuses on the instrumental, pragmatic values of actions. Reciprocity is of the form:
"you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours."
Individuals at the second, conventional, level reason about moral situations with an understanding that norms and conventions are necessary to uphold society.
Within this level, individuals at Stage 3 define what is right in terms of what is expected by people close to them and in terms of the stereo-typic roles that define being good–for example, a good brother, mother, teacher.
Stage 4 marks the shift from defining what is right in terms of local norms and role expectations
to defining right in terms of the laws and norms established by the larger social system. This is the "member of society" perspective in which one is moral by fulfilling the actual duties defining one's social responsibilities.
Finally,
the postconventional level is characterized by reasoning based on principles, using a "prior to society" perspective. These individuals reason on the basis of principles that underlie rules and norms. While two stages have been presented within the theory, only one, Stage 5, has received substantial empirical support.
Stage 6 remains a theoretical endpoint that rationally follows from the preceding five stages. In essence this last level of moral judgment entails reasoning rooted in the ethical fairness principles from which moral laws would be devised. Laws are evaluated in terms of their coherence with basic principles of fairness rather than upheld simply on the basis of their place within an existing social order."
Moral Development - Lawrence Kohlberg's Theory of Moral Development and Education - Social, Children, Child, Stage, Morality, and Domain
